and how many top 5 picks did those teams have back before the rookie wage scale was implemented?

you keep looking at only 1/2 of a picture and sqeezing that in to fit your perspective. I found at least 6 players off the top of my head that make over 9 mil last year...but yet you dont bring them up....cuz it doesnt support your arguement.

plain and simple: there is more than one way to build a winner...if there was only one everybody would be doing the same thing.

We're not "doing it wrong". we're doing it differently than you would.

Thats all you have managaed to prove in your rants all year long.

No, you can't give me that crap... You can't say "there's tons of players that make $9 mill per year) because CJ and Staff and Suh are making WELL OVER $10. CJ is making $18, Staff is making $20 per for the next two... I don't want to hear about other team's $9 million dollar guys (and NE's next highest paid guy is Hernadez, who is making around $7 mill).

Again, IT DOESN'T MATTER that we drafted these guys high or before the rookie wage scale. Like I said, we had an opportunity to get rid of Suh BEFORE we restructured him, but we didn't. If what you say is true, than we're just masochistic. We're INTENTIONALLY holding ourselves back, because we COULD have shed that contract that you're saying is so bad, we COULD have gotten rid of what you're calling our cancer, and Mayhew CHOSE to keep him around. You see how that doesn't work for you?

We ARE "doing it wrong." No other top team is doing what we're doing, period... NONE! Not even Baltimore.

March 14th, 2013, 3:26 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Salary Cap

rao wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

rao wrote:

If you didn't throw a fit every time you hear Stafford and Suh extension talk you'd have your answer. Both those guys could have their cap hits brought down below $10M.

Let's also not forget the Ravens won a super bowl with 3 $10M guys in Ngata, Suggs, and Reed. Only Suggs plays a position that is normal a high pay spot.

I'm not a fan of how Mayhew manages the cap, but it's still possible to build the team the way its going and it's all a moot point now anyway because Suh can no longer be traded without causing more harm than good.

That is to say "it's still possible to build a team in the mold of the Cardinals..." That doesn't mean that we can be successful at it...

Also, what have the Raven's done? They've done VERY well in the draft, and they've built their offense the exact opposite of most teams in the NFL, which, up to this point, has helped them save money. Now that Flacco is earning more and their players are getting older, Baltimore is going to die. They're going to have to change their entire philosophy. They can still be a blue collar tough D team, and Ray Lewis' mark will remain on that team, but they had leadership and grew boys into men on that team... They got a lot of production out of a LOT of their lower end talent, and look what they did... Let their #1 WR walk... They didn't "re-structure" him, they didn't kick the can down the road, they said "thanks!"

The mistakes Mayhew has made is irrelevant to your initial argument that winning teams can't be built with 3 10M+ players. It can be done, but it's not easy.

Baltimore has had 3 big pay players for a long time now. Suggs, Reed, and Lewis have been with the team for a long time and they were the big three there before Lewis lost a step and played for less money. Again they payed a guy in Lewis at a non premium spot and it worked.

1) We didn't have 3, we had 4, and that's a big difference;

2) We don't have three $10M plus players, we have 3 $15M plus players, and no team, not even Baltimore, has had that.

If you didn't throw a fit every time you hear Stafford and Suh extension talk you'd have your answer. Both those guys could have their cap hits brought down below $10M.

Let's also not forget the Ravens won a super bowl with 3 $10M guys in Ngata, Suggs, and Reed. Only Suggs plays a position that is normal a high pay spot.

I'm not a fan of how Mayhew manages the cap, but it's still possible to build the team the way its going and it's all a moot point now anyway because Suh can no longer be traded without causing more harm than good.

That is to say "it's still possible to build a team in the mold of the Cardinals..." That doesn't mean that we can be successful at it...

Also, what have the Raven's done? They've done VERY well in the draft, and they've built their offense the exact opposite of most teams in the NFL, which, up to this point, has helped them save money. Now that Flacco is earning more and their players are getting older, Baltimore is going to die. They're going to have to change their entire philosophy. They can still be a blue collar tough D team, and Ray Lewis' mark will remain on that team, but they had leadership and grew boys into men on that team... They got a lot of production out of a LOT of their lower end talent, and look what they did... Let their #1 WR walk... They didn't "re-structure" him, they didn't kick the can down the road, they said "thanks!"

The mistakes Mayhew has made is irrelevant to your initial argument that winning teams can't be built with 3 10M+ players. It can be done, but it's not easy.

Baltimore has had 3 big pay players for a long time now. Suggs, Reed, and Lewis have been with the team for a long time and they were the big three there before Lewis lost a step and played for less money. Again they payed a guy in Lewis at a non premium spot and it worked.

1) We didn't have 3, we had 4, and that's a big difference;

2) We don't have three $10M plus players, we have 3 $15M plus players, and no team, not even Baltimore, has had that.

The two players can get their cap hits down to $10M with extensions and the 3rd is at $12M, so if Mayhew wants to do it that way he can make it work with the cap. No one is arguing Avril on the Franchise wasn't a bad idea.

March 14th, 2013, 3:49 pm

regularjoe12

Off. Coordinator – Joe Lombardi

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 amPosts: 3955Location: Davison Mi

Re: Salary Cap

wjb21ndtown wrote:

regularjoe12 wrote:

and how many top 5 picks did those teams have back before the rookie wage scale was implemented?

you keep looking at only 1/2 of a picture and sqeezing that in to fit your perspective. I found at least 6 players off the top of my head that make over 9 mil last year...but yet you dont bring them up....cuz it doesnt support your arguement.

plain and simple: there is more than one way to build a winner...if there was only one everybody would be doing the same thing.

We're not "doing it wrong". we're doing it differently than you would.

Thats all you have managaed to prove in your rants all year long.

No, you can't give me that crap... You can't say "there's tons of players that make $9 mill per year) because CJ and Staff and Suh are making WELL OVER $10. CJ is making $18, Staff is making $20 per for the next two... I don't want to hear about other team's $9 million dollar guys (and NE's next highest paid guy is Hernadez, who is making around $7 mill).

Again, IT DOESN'T MATTER that we drafted these guys high or before the rookie wage scale. Like I said, we had an opportunity to get rid of Suh BEFORE we restructured him, but we didn't. If what you say is true, than we're just masochistic. We're INTENTIONALLY holding ourselves back, because we COULD have shed that contract that you're saying is so bad, we COULD have gotten rid of what you're calling our cancer, and Mayhew CHOSE to keep him around. You see how that doesn't work for you?We ARE "doing it wrong." No other top team is doing what we're doing, period... NONE! Not even Baltimore.

Dude....calm down....I cant make heads or tails of what you are trying to say in the bolded part. Take a breath, count to 3, and retype that so I can understand it please.

For example.1) how can you say it doesnt matter about when or where they got traded. the whole reason they made the rule change is cuz the top 10 picks were getting paid way too much and it hamstrung the team that drafted there. remember how NO ONE would trade for a top 5 pick becasue of high rookie salaries???? how do you blaim that on Mayhew?

2) we had an opportunity to trade Suh? What news letter are you getting that im not? I havnt heard any offers. He makes too much for a DT...(no one argues that)

I wanted to add that I'm pretty sure we have never had an opportunity to trade Suh. His dead money has always been to high and more keeps getting added to each year making it not possible the following year.

They would have had a chance next year, but again a restructure killed it before they have gotten there.

March 14th, 2013, 4:12 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Salary Cap

regularjoe12 wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

regularjoe12 wrote:

and how many top 5 picks did those teams have back before the rookie wage scale was implemented?

you keep looking at only 1/2 of a picture and sqeezing that in to fit your perspective. I found at least 6 players off the top of my head that make over 9 mil last year...but yet you dont bring them up....cuz it doesnt support your arguement.

plain and simple: there is more than one way to build a winner...if there was only one everybody would be doing the same thing.

We're not "doing it wrong". we're doing it differently than you would.

Thats all you have managaed to prove in your rants all year long.

No, you can't give me that crap... You can't say "there's tons of players that make $9 mill per year) because CJ and Staff and Suh are making WELL OVER $10. CJ is making $18, Staff is making $20 per for the next two... I don't want to hear about other team's $9 million dollar guys (and NE's next highest paid guy is Hernadez, who is making around $7 mill).

Again, IT DOESN'T MATTER that we drafted these guys high or before the rookie wage scale. Like I said, we had an opportunity to get rid of Suh BEFORE we restructured him, but we didn't. If what you say is true, than we're just masochistic. We're INTENTIONALLY holding ourselves back, because we COULD have shed that contract that you're saying is so bad, we COULD have gotten rid of what you're calling our cancer, and Mayhew CHOSE to keep him around. You see how that doesn't work for you?We ARE "doing it wrong." No other top team is doing what we're doing, period... NONE! Not even Baltimore.

Dude....calm down....I cant make heads or tails of what you are trying to say in the bolded part. Take a breath, count to 3, and retype that so I can understand it please.

For example.1) how can you say it doesnt matter about when or where they got traded. the whole reason they made the rule change is cuz the top 10 picks were getting paid way too much and it hamstrung the team that drafted there. remember how NO ONE would trade for a top 5 pick becasue of high rookie salaries???? how do you blaim that on Mayhew?

2) we had an opportunity to trade Suh? What news letter are you getting that im not? I havnt heard any offers. He makes too much for a DT...(no one argues that)

and the rest...i honestly cant get to make any sense......

I can't explain it any more simple. I don't know what else you want...

Stafford and CJ would be making what they're making regardless. You can't argue draft status for those guys, period. Suh is the only player you could argue about...

However, we COULD have traded Suh after June 1st this year. We could have "gotten rid of" the contract you liken to a cancer, so, if that is the case, then Mayhew must be masochistic because he holds onto that contract and keeps extending it like it's gold.

Do you know that Suh's cap hit is now $20 million for next season? BRILLIANT!!!

March 14th, 2013, 6:51 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Salary Cap

rao wrote:

I wanted to add that I'm pretty sure we have never had an opportunity to trade Suh. His dead money has always been to high and more keeps getting added to each year making it not possible the following year.

They would have had a chance next year, but again a restructure killed it before they have gotten there.

Your entire premise is that Baltimore did it, so therefore it is possible...

Look at what's happening to Baltimore now... It's not sustainable, and I'd argue that the trend is to get away from paying a small group a ton of money. Look at what virtually every other playoff team is doing.... Additionally, we're so far away from a SB run it's sick. Virtually every unit is in shambles, except for possibly RB and QB, if you can call those positions units. Our OL is in shambles, our DL is in shambles, LBs? Shambles... DBs? Shambles... We need at lest 2 more starters in our backfield. Ridiculous...

March 14th, 2013, 6:56 pm

inheritedlionsfan

Team MVP

Joined: January 13th, 2006, 4:18 amPosts: 3347Location: Maryland

Re: Salary Cap

How does the voidable year affect all this? I'm assuming it doesn't make anything any different, which means we still have to account for the bonus from that year.

As far as I'm aware, the June 1st thing only applies to cuts, not trades. But I could be wrong on that so let's say it does apply.

Even if we hadn't restructured him this offseason, the bonus money for the next 2 years (14 and 15 -which is the voidable one) would have been about 6M a year, so trading him next year would have accelerated $12M onto the cap right away. His base salary was about $11.5M so that would have cost us half a mil and we'd have one less player.

If we had traded him post June first before this last restructure, we'd have an $18M hit to spread over 2 years so we'd have saved about $3M this year and about $2M next year, but still had to replace him and that money wouldn't have been available until June.

With the restructure, which btw we don't have all the details on, just one idea of what it may have been, it's likely that he cut his base salary down by 9M which added $3M to each year as a bonus, including this year. All that means it adds a total of $6M to the final two years so the cap hit of trading him after June would be $27M over 2 years costing us about a mil this year (remember because of the restructure we saved about 7.6mil) and technically saving 6mil next year (he's now a $20M hit and would cost us $14M if off the roster). If we just flat out trade him next year, we would immediately have the acceleration of $18M which would technically save about 2M.

March 14th, 2013, 7:36 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Salary Cap

inheritedlionsfan wrote:

How does the voidable year affect all this? I'm assuming it doesn't make anything any different, which means we still have to account for the bonus from that year.

As far as I'm aware, the June 1st thing only applies to cuts, not trades. But I could be wrong on that so let's say it does apply.

Even if we hadn't restructured him this offseason, the bonus money for the next 2 years (14 and 15 -which is the voidable one) would have been about 6M a year, so trading him next year would have accelerated $12M onto the cap right away. His base salary was about $11.5M so that would have cost us half a mil and we'd have one less player.

If we had traded him post June first before this last restructure, we'd have an $18M hit to spread over 2 years so we'd have saved about $3M this year and about $2M next year, but still had to replace him and that money wouldn't have been available until June.

With the restructure, which btw we don't have all the details on, just one idea of what it may have been, it's likely that he cut his base salary down by 9M which added $3M to each year as a bonus, including this year. All that means it adds a total of $6M to the final two years so the cap hit of trading him after June would be $27M over 2 years costing us about a mil this year (remember because of the restructure we saved about 7.6mil) and technically saving 6mil next year (he's now a $20M hit and would cost us $14M if off the roster). If we just flat out trade him next year, we would immediately have the acceleration of $18M which would technically save about 2M.

My point is, you can't argue that his contract is holding us back when:1) We created the situation by kicking the can down the road (Valenti was ripping Mayhew today for the same thing, using the same phrase); and2) We had the potential to get rid of him.

If it is his "contract" holding us back, get rid of it... It's possible... Instead, Mayhew is clinging to the damn thing, and ensuring that it's going to hamper us later down the road.

Ok so apparently the June 1st thing does apply to trades, but only the current year's bonus applies to this cap and the other remaining years go on to the following year, so a team can't divide it up evenly which I thought they could.

This means that now we'd take $9M to the cap this year but still save whatever Suh's now base salary is this year (supposedly around $2M) and we would take an $18M hit next year but again have about $2M of space because the total he was due is $20M.

March 14th, 2013, 7:58 pm

inheritedlionsfan

Team MVP

Joined: January 13th, 2006, 4:18 amPosts: 3347Location: Maryland

Re: Salary Cap

For the record, I like Suh and I actually wish we could keep him but with the money he's going to want to re-sign it's not possible so I'm in the trade him next year camp, deal with the cap hit (before free agency signings we had about $25-$30M available next year, now down to about $14-$16M depending on how high the cap rises) and move on.

March 14th, 2013, 8:02 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Salary Cap

inheritedlionsfan wrote:

For the record, I like Suh and I actually wish we could keep him but with the money he's going to want to re-sign it's not possible so I'm in the trade him next year camp, deal with the cap hit (before free agency signings we had about $25-$30M available next year, now down to about $14-$16M depending on how high the cap rises) and move on.

If you look at what other teams are doing, it really is the best option. If we're going to invest $18 million per year in CJ, and $10+ million per year in Stafford, we have to build a great offense, and realize that we're going to be stuck with a mediocre D. That's the way it works. You can't be great everywhere, and you have to let players go when their salary outgrows their contribution to the team. That's the way of the NFL and that's what good teams are doing to stay on top. We need to get with the program, and stop holding onto antiquated ways of the NFL.

You guys don't get it, so I'm going to try to break it down in a more practical manner for you... You guys think we should "go get" everyone, sign everyone, and "re-negotiate" everyone's contract... Here's some food for thought...

New England has one player, ONE that makes over $10 million dollars (Brady)SF has none... ZERO players that make over $10 million dollarsThe Packers have one player, ONE that makes over $10 million dollars (Rogers)The Texans have ZERO players that make over $10 million dollarsThe Saints have ZERO Players that make over $10 million dollarsThe Giants have ONE player that makes over $10 million dollars (Manning)The Seahawks have ZERO players that make over $10 million dollars

How many did we have last year? FOUR!!! FOUR PHUCKING PLAYERS MAKING OVER $10 million dollars. How many will we have in 2013? THREE!!! Ridiculous... And everyone that wants Suh to go "hates him..." UnPHUCKING believable... Lockerroom cancer, moderate production, HUGE salary... Perfect...

Your darn right. We did it wrong. We should have won enough to pick outside of the top 10 for a decade. It is no-one's FAULT. And there was nothing that could be done to prevent it except win enough to avoid it. If anyone is at fault it would be old man Ford for being too stupidly loyal to Millen.

I wanted to add that I'm pretty sure we have never had an opportunity to trade Suh. His dead money has always been to high and more keeps getting added to each year making it not possible the following year.

They would have had a chance next year, but again a restructure killed it before they have gotten there.

Your entire premise is that Baltimore did it, so therefore it is possible...

Look at what's happening to Baltimore now... It's not sustainable, and I'd argue that the trend is to get away from paying a small group a ton of money. Look at what virtually every other playoff team is doing.... Additionally, we're so far away from a SB run it's sick. Virtually every unit is in shambles, except for possibly RB and QB, if you can call those positions units. Our OL is in shambles, our DL is in shambles, LBs? Shambles... DBs? Shambles... We need at lest 2 more starters in our backfield. Ridiculous...

I've said multiple times when we post about these things, I don't like the way Mayhew is doing this. I also don't think it will be sustainable, but if his goal is getting to the Super Bowl then there is at least one team that have done it with a load of money put into three players. Pit is also a team that I'm sure has done well with a ton of money in 3 guys, they are always in cap hell. Everything depends on Mayhew drafting well and that's his biggest failure because even if he was trying to build a different way it still severely damages your ability to build a good roster.

Even if they weren't paying Suh, Stafford, and CJ the money they are getting it would just be a different 3 guys making huge coin because they don't get players out of the draft. My problem is you complain about the money these 3 guys are getting, but it's simple for him to get around it and isn't whats holding the team back. It's his terrible post 1st rd round drafting. Look what Miami did with their cap space, look at Indy blowing money on the first day. The Lions would be doing the same thing because they are barren of talent outside of the big money guys they got in the 1st round.

All those teams you are throwing out there don't have guys making money like the Lions team because

1) They haven't spent 4 years trying to work with the only assets Millen left them

2) They draft well enough to be able to let their FAs walk because they have servicable replacements available already on the roster.

3) They have been ran well enough for long enough they haven't had to draft 3 guys in the top 2 of three different drafts since 2007.

The Redskins proved many years over you can't build a team with FAs. The lack of cap space isn't helping the situation, but it sure as hell isn't the most important thing holding the team back.

March 14th, 2013, 8:28 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Salary Cap

rao wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

rao wrote:

I wanted to add that I'm pretty sure we have never had an opportunity to trade Suh. His dead money has always been to high and more keeps getting added to each year making it not possible the following year.

They would have had a chance next year, but again a restructure killed it before they have gotten there.

Your entire premise is that Baltimore did it, so therefore it is possible...

Look at what's happening to Baltimore now... It's not sustainable, and I'd argue that the trend is to get away from paying a small group a ton of money. Look at what virtually every other playoff team is doing.... Additionally, we're so far away from a SB run it's sick. Virtually every unit is in shambles, except for possibly RB and QB, if you can call those positions units. Our OL is in shambles, our DL is in shambles, LBs? Shambles... DBs? Shambles... We need at lest 2 more starters in our backfield. Ridiculous...

I've said multiple times when we post about these things, I don't like the way Mayhew is doing this. I also don't think it will be sustainable, but if his goal is getting to the Super Bowl then there is at least one team that have done it with a load of money put into three players. Pit is also a team that I'm sure has done well with a ton of money in 3 guys, they are always in cap hell. Everything depends on Mayhew drafting well and that's his biggest failure because even if he was trying to build a different way it still severely damages your ability to build a good roster.

Even if they weren't paying Suh, Stafford, and CJ the money they are getting it would just be a different 3 guys making huge coin because they don't get players out of the draft. My problem is you complain about the money these 3 guys are getting, but it's simple for him to get around it and isn't whats holding the team back. It's his terrible post 1st rd round drafting. Look what Miami did with their cap space, look at Indy blowing money on the first day. The Lions would be doing the same thing because they are barren of talent outside of the big money guys they got in the 1st round.

All those teams you are throwing out there don't have guys making money like the Lions team because

1) They haven't spent 4 years trying to work with the only assets Millen left them

2) They draft well enough to be able to let their FAs walk because they have servicable replacements available already on the roster.

3) They have been ran well enough for long enough they haven't had to draft 3 guys in the top 2 of three different drafts since 2007.

The Redskins proved many years over you can't build a team with FAs. The lack of cap space isn't helping the situation, but it sure as hell isn't the most important thing holding the team back.

I don't disagree with you, but I will contend, that you can (and we should have) at least filled the roster with quality B level free agents. When teams sign players like Porter, Michael Bush, and Manningham for an average of around $3 mill per it drives me nuts when we have holes at CB, RB, and #2 WR. We COULD have fielded a good team last year, and we should have moved on from Matt Millen prior to 2012. Mayhew has had far too much time with this team to blame anything on Millen. It's Mayhew killing this team, not Millen.